About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)
schwarzenegger and our attorney general at the time, which was jerry brown, the current governor. both responded by refusing to defend the case and ultimately joined our side in the case and said it was fundamentally an unconstitutional law and they weren't going to defend it. so the judge in our case, chief judge vaughn walker, who wrote that historic ruling in this case, allowed the intervening defendants, the proponents of prop 8, to intervene and to defend the case. on the doma case, a small group of folks on capitol hill out of the house have come together and are defending it because the federal government won't. at the end of the day this is unconstitutional, and everyone knows it. >> it's a day in history here. this could be a major moment in the court's history. look at what tom goldstein of scotus blogged last week. quote, i have never before seen cases i believe would be discussed 200 years from now. bush v. gore, obama care were relative pipsqueaks. the government's assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry or to refuse to recognize such a marriage is profound. so i
schwarzenegger and our attorney general at the time, jerry brown, the current governor. both responded by refusing to defend the case and ultimately joined our signed the case and said it was fundamentally and unconstitutional law and they weren't going to defend it. the judge in our case. chief judge von walker, who wrote that historic ruling in this case allowed the intervening defendants, proponents of prop 8 to enter vene and defend the case. in the doma case, the small group on capitol hill at the house have come together and defending it because the federal government won't. at the end of the day, this is unconstitutional and everyone knows it. >> a day of history. it can be a major moment. look what tom goldstein, a very respected blog wrote last week. i have never before seen cases i believed would be discussed 200 years from now. bush v gore. the government's search to prohibit a loving couple to marry and refuse to recognize such a marriage is profound and such is the opposite claim that five justices can read the constitution and strip the people of the power governing a soc
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)